Sure. Look, there are SEVERAL rebuttals for atheism/evolution. One of the many examples that Dr. Michael Behe uses to show the Biochemical complexity (which atheists reject), is blood clotting: If your blood does not clot in the right place, in the right amount and at the right time, you will bleed to death. It turns out that the blood clotting system involves an extremely choreographed ten-step cascade that uses about twenty different molecular compounds. To create a complex, perfectly balanced blood coagulation system, clusters of protein components have to be inserted all at once. That eliminates a Darwinian approach and fits the hypothesis of an intelligent designer. How could blood clotting develop over time, step by step, while the animal had no effective way of stopping the blood flow that would cause death every time it was injured? It doesn’t work if you only have one part of the system, you need all the components, and natural selection only works if there is something useful at that time, not in the future. Finally, no one has ever carried out experiments to show how blood clotting could have developed. It is one of the many examples of an irreducibly complex system, which needs to emerge complete to function. My response has been extracted from Behe´s response in the book “The case for the Creator” of Lee Strobel. Look, i know there are several atheists here that like to hide on this forum and erase any comment they don´t like, but i believe you can be open-minded
Irreducible complexity arguments are pretty unconvincing at this point. The Theory of Evolution has already been proven beyond any reasonable doubt, and you would know this if you had objectively looked at both sides, as I have. Because you don’t already know better, I don’t think the dispute can be resolved at this level of argument. We have to take a step back and look at our disagreement in terms of epistemology.
Was that your true rejection? Hypothetically, if science had an answer to all of your irreducible complexity objections, would you then accept evolution, or is there some deeper reason you’re not telling us? Are you going where the evidence leads you, or did you write the bottom line first and work backwards from there?
Look, i know there are several atheists here that like to hide on this forum and erase any comment they don´t like, but i believe you can be open-minded
You must be new here. Nobody is hiding. The last community survey I saw shows we’re at least 70% atheist. If you’re out to “save our souls” and aren’t just trolling for fun, then I suggest you learn how to talk to us first. Posts that make obvious mistakes in reasoning that were already covered in the Sequences are going to get downvoted very quickly. Read what we’re about and play by our rules, because that’s the only way we’re going to listen.
No one is erasing other people’s comments here unless they’re outright abusive.
As for the “irreducible complexity” argument, you may notice that it has convinced approximately zero percent of actual biologists. You may find “they’re all brainwashed atheists so completely under Satan’s thumb that they can’t form rational opinions” a more convincing explanation for that than “the argument is actually not very strong”, but I don’t agree.
(I agree with the biologists; I think Behe’s argument is bad. But I don’t think arguing about that argument is particularly on topic here.)
Also, no one is claiming that Francis Bacon is anyone’s moral foundation. I think you may not have been reading what Scott wrote very carefully.
Evolving eyes is hard: they need to evolve Eye Part 1, then Eye Part 2, then Eye Part 3, in that order. Each of these requires a separate series of rare mutations.
Sure. Look, there are SEVERAL rebuttals for atheism/evolution. One of the many examples that Dr. Michael Behe uses to show the Biochemical complexity (which atheists reject), is blood clotting: If your blood does not clot in the right place, in the right amount and at the right time, you will bleed to death. It turns out that the blood clotting system involves an extremely choreographed ten-step cascade that uses about twenty different molecular compounds. To create a complex, perfectly balanced blood coagulation system, clusters of protein components have to be inserted all at once. That eliminates a Darwinian approach and fits the hypothesis of an intelligent designer. How could blood clotting develop over time, step by step, while the animal had no effective way of stopping the blood flow that would cause death every time it was injured? It doesn’t work if you only have one part of the system, you need all the components, and natural selection only works if there is something useful at that time, not in the future. Finally, no one has ever carried out experiments to show how blood clotting could have developed. It is one of the many examples of an irreducibly complex system, which needs to emerge complete to function. My response has been extracted from Behe´s response in the book “The case for the Creator” of Lee Strobel. Look, i know there are several atheists here that like to hide on this forum and erase any comment they don´t like, but i believe you can be open-minded
Step-by-Step Evolution of Vertebrate Blood Coagulation.
Irreducible complexity arguments are pretty unconvincing at this point. The Theory of Evolution has already been proven beyond any reasonable doubt, and you would know this if you had objectively looked at both sides, as I have. Because you don’t already know better, I don’t think the dispute can be resolved at this level of argument. We have to take a step back and look at our disagreement in terms of epistemology.
Was that your true rejection? Hypothetically, if science had an answer to all of your irreducible complexity objections, would you then accept evolution, or is there some deeper reason you’re not telling us? Are you going where the evidence leads you, or did you write the bottom line first and work backwards from there?
You must be new here. Nobody is hiding. The last community survey I saw shows we’re at least 70% atheist. If you’re out to “save our souls” and aren’t just trolling for fun, then I suggest you learn how to talk to us first. Posts that make obvious mistakes in reasoning that were already covered in the Sequences are going to get downvoted very quickly. Read what we’re about and play by our rules, because that’s the only way we’re going to listen.
No one is erasing other people’s comments here unless they’re outright abusive.
As for the “irreducible complexity” argument, you may notice that it has convinced approximately zero percent of actual biologists. You may find “they’re all brainwashed atheists so completely under Satan’s thumb that they can’t form rational opinions” a more convincing explanation for that than “the argument is actually not very strong”, but I don’t agree.
(I agree with the biologists; I think Behe’s argument is bad. But I don’t think arguing about that argument is particularly on topic here.)
Also, no one is claiming that Francis Bacon is anyone’s moral foundation. I think you may not have been reading what Scott wrote very carefully.
Evolving eyes is hard: they need to evolve Eye Part 1, then Eye Part 2, then Eye Part 3, in that order. Each of these requires a separate series of rare mutations.